Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: John Hollenberg on November 15, 2010, 04:03:08 pm
-
Canon USA just released plugins to support CS4 and CS5 on Win X64 platforms for the iPF6300 and iPF8300 printers. To get to the right download area, you can use the links in the Latest Drivers section of the Wiki:
http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Latest+Drivers%2C+Plugin%2C+Firmware+and+Utilities
-
Cool, been looking forward to this. I remember Canon said a while back they hoped to have the 64-bit plugin out in the fall, I'm glad to see the release didn't slip.
-
Plenty of new features to check out.
I note the bit in the release notes that says: "Processing method of monochrome photograph printing has been changed to improve the representation of dark areas."
I was looking at aspects of B/W the other day, so I'll repeat some of the measurements when I get a chance:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf8300.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf8300.html)
-
I note the bit in the release notes that says: "Processing method of monochrome photograph printing has been changed to improve the representation of dark areas."
Hmm, guess I may need to reprofile. (I use QuadToneRIP to generate ICC profiles for the monochrome mode).
-
Nothing for us Mac users?
-
Actually, there is a plugin for Mac users too for the 6300/8300 (just checked; didn't occur to me before as this is a "foreign" system to me :) Works for CS4/CS5 per the Canon web page.
-
Actually, there is a plugin for Mac users too for the 6300/8300 (just checked; didn't occur to me before as this is a "foreign" system to me :) Works for CS4/CS5 per the Canon web page.
I’m running the plug-in but the version I have will not run 64-bit. So I have to run CS5 in 32 bit (or use it in CS4).
-
I’m running the plug-in but the version I have will not run 64-bit. So I have to run CS5 in 32 bit (or use it in CS4).
As I understand it this is not about running Photoshop in 64 bit mode with the ipf x300 plugin, it's about running under CS4 and CS5 that are installed on 64 bit versions of Windows.
Mac users aren't missing any kind of critical update here as far as I can tell.
Cheers, Joe
-
I’m running the plug-in but the version I have will not run 64-bit. So I have to run CS5 in 32 bit (or use it in CS4).
Details - iPF8300 imagePROGRAF Print Plug-In for Photoshop CS4/CS5 Ver.5.00 for Mac OS X v10.4-v10.6 from Canon Software and Driver page.
Modifications from Ver.4.10
a) 64-bit version Photoshop has been supported.
Is this not the case?
-
As I understand it this is not about running Photoshop in 64 bit mode with the ipf x300 plugin, it's about running under CS4 and CS5 that are installed on 64 bit versions of Windows.
Running the plug-in under 64-bit Windows has never been a problem, as long you were running 32-bit Photoshop.
With the new updates today, 64-bit Photoshop is supported. Since there was a Mac update today was well I would think it supports 64-bit Photoshop, but somebody with a Mac will have to try it out.
-
The plugin now installs just fine, offering install options of CS4 and CS5 - I dragged a copy into my CS3 plugins and it seemed to work fine there too.
It updates custom paper formats when starting
However, you can forget using the Adobe CMM in 64bit (works fine in 32 bit)
When attempting to set the Adobe CMM in 64 bit mode, it won't play
(http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images/8300/v5-cmm.jpg)
I should of course have read -all- the notes
"With this Print Plug-In release, Adobe CMM corresponding to Photoshop 64-bit edition is not being released. Check with Adobe Systems Inc. for the latest status"
So, anyone know if a Mac 64bit CMM is due from Adobe? (or if it's available, where I can find it)
-
Keith
Which version of PS are you getting this message? You would think that CS5 would have a 64-bit version of the AdobeACE in its package.
As I recall there was a download from Adobe of a Adobe CMM, check your CMM folders in both Library/ColorSync and System/Library/ColorSync. The plugin may be picking up that instead of the AdobeACE in the CS5 package.
Can you choose other CMMs like Apple and ColorGear?
-
The CMM download is required for the plugin (you're prompted to do it when first using the plugin) since it does not use whatever is installed in Photoshop (I've CS3 and 5 on the machine I'm using)
It is correctly picked up and available in CS5 32 bit mode, but not in 64 bit. It's been placed in Library/ColorSync/CMMs by the Adobe installer
The Canon installation guide does actually say that it won't work for 64 bit, hence my question about availability of a Mac 64bit CMM from Adobe.
I've added more screen shots in my 8300 notes (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf8300.html#Anchor-New-49575)
In 64 bit mode the 'OS Standard CMM' is the only one listed, in 32 bit Adobe CMM is listed.
-
Right, the title of this thread should probably be "64bit compatible Canon iPF x300 Photoshop Plug-ins now available for CS4 and CS5 for Windows and Mac"
The fact that the AdobeCMM doesn't work in PS64 bit certainly doesn't bother me. Without it, the only thing we're missing is Black Point Compensation with the Relative Colorimetric intent. As more users are focused on using either Perceptual or AbsolCol I don't see this as a big deal. Maybe Adobe will update their CMM soon anyway?
-
Running the plug-in under 64-bit Windows has never been a problem, as long you were running 32-bit Photoshop.
With the new updates today, 64-bit Photoshop is supported. Since there was a Mac update today was well I would think it supports 64-bit Photoshop, but somebody with a Mac will have to try it out.
Thanks for the clarification Jeff!
Cheers, Joe
-
The fact that the AdobeCMM doesn't work in PS64 bit certainly doesn't bother me. Without it, the only thing we're missing is Black Point Compensation with the Relative Colorimetric intent. As more users are focused on using either Perceptual or AbsolCol I don't see this as a big deal. Maybe Adobe will update their CMM soon anyway?
Do people really use AbsCol? For press proofing, maybe, but for finished prints?
RelCol w/BPC is my preferred printing method, especially for fiber-gloss papers where gamut is rarely an issue, as I feel it gives more accurate results than Percerptual. Plus I would prefer to use the same CMM as Adobe apps, rather than relying on the Windows CMM. So this is a deal breaker for me, guess I'll still be printing from 32-bit PS for the foreseeable future.
-
Do people really use AbsCol? For press proofing, maybe, but for finished prints?
AbsCOl for press proofs only, Perceptual for fine art printing. Relative Colorimetric without BPC can also be useful for press proofing.
RelCol w/BPC is my preferred printing method, especially for fiber-gloss papers where gamut is rarely an issue, as I feel it gives more accurate results than Percerptual.
IMO, that represents a failure on the profile manufacturer's behalf. Excellent perceptual rendering will trump RelCol for fine art printing. The profile manufacturer plays a big part here and Monaco Profiler and it's upcoming successor have the best Perceptual rendering. Once you use it you'll never want to go back to RelCol again. Better "edge gamut" saturation without loss of detail, "middle gamut" colors stay the same, better gray balance, better shadow detail, etc.
-
IMO, that represents a failure on the profile manufacturer's behalf. Excellent perceptual rendering will trump RelCol for fine art printing.
I'm not sure how you can say that. ICC profiles don't know squat about images, or the relationship between solid colors (pixels) in context that produce what we see as an image. Only people who view them can. I've used a lot of different profiles built using differing perceptual mapping, those I've built and those others have built. I simply have to soft proof each image and see how the relationship of the intent affects the image before I pick a RI. FWIW, I find I often prefer the RelCol intent. But I have to toggle between it and Perceptual to make such a judgement call.
-
Having tested all kinds of new profiles I can agree with Scott on the use of perceptual.
I did however have an image the other day that I felt better matched the look i was after with relcol +BPC ...this with a profile that normally gives its best for perceptual.
Hopefully, we'll be able to discuss the details of this before too much longer... ;-)
-
Just finished a look at how the B/W print mode has changed - with a paper I measured the other day the B/W mode seems to print in a more linear manner with the new plugin, although very deep blacks are crunched a bit.
Not meant as a detailed quantitative analysis - just to satisfy myself that B/W print output will look slightly different :-)
Some numbers on my 8300 page (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_ipf8300.html#bw_print_changes)
-
I'm not sure how you can say that.
1) Well, it's just an opinion and was presented as such.
2) I've made Perceptual vs RelCol prints and have traveled around with them in my print samples box showing them to clients and photographers at workshops, lectures, etc. I've repeated the test on their printers with their images again and again. If the perceptual rendering is made a certain way, 100% of the people I've polled (over 500) agree that it's preferable 100% of the time.
3) I should also say that, IMO the perfect perceptual rendering isn't found when the default perceptual rendering intent settings are used. I'm not saying what I use but I do tweak the settings for a sweet spot that I've spent a lot of time discovering. The fact that the defaults are disappointing is also a failure on the manufacture's part considering the potential that's there.
4) It bears repeating that different manufacture's get to design their own perceptual rendering - it's not defined by the ICC as the other intents are. So RelCol from GMB, XRIte and basICColor profiles will perform about the same but Perceptual can be shockingly different. Some of them perform Perceptual rendering much better than others, and some are quite disappointing. I'd like to humbly suggest that those that don't like perceptual rendering, or don't think it's for all fine art printing purposes simply haven't seen the best perceptual rendering that's possible.
FWIW, I find I often prefer the RelCol intent.
[respectfully] Then you probably haven't found the optimal perceptual rendering settings. Once you do I doubt you'd ever like RelCol for fine art purposes. If there's something that you're liking about RelCol that would be fun to discuss and I think Perceptual has an answer for it.
I've talked with the engineers involved with making MP's perceptual rendering intent and I think it's one of the crown jewels that XRite obtained with the Monaco purchase. One of many that they are finally putting into good use...
-
[respectfully] Then you probably haven't found the optimal perceptual rendering settings. Once you do I doubt you'd ever like RelCol for fine art purposes. If there's something that you're liking about RelCol that would be fun to discuss and I think Perceptual has an answer for it.
I've talked with the engineers involved with making MP's perceptual rendering intent and I think it's one of the crown jewels that XRite obtained with the Monaco purchase. One of many that they are finally putting into good use...
I frankly don’t see (and haven’t seen) where the current technology, which looks at single, solid color values without placing them in any context can make a decision like this better than I can by viewing the different intents based on image content. By the time the Perceptual or RelCol intent is upon us, the software is just looking at a big pile of numeric values, Lab values no less. It doesn’t treat a black dog on coal, a white cat on snow or a very colorful scene any differently, it has no idea about how these thousands or millions of solid squares react next to each other as a visual context.
I’ve got access to the same newer tools as you, at least in terms of those crown jewels, nothing has convinced me that I should blindly pick one rendering intent.
Here’s an image, its nothing special but its an image composed of lots of colored pixels and a rendering intent makes them look different. Its my image, so I have a strong feeling about which rendering I prefer:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Zia.jpg)
Here’s what a profile knows about this image and nothing more! Its simply the unique Lab values extracted using ColorThink (I decided it wasn’t necessary to provide all 2667 unique values, hopefully we all get the idea here):
SampleID SampleName Lab_L Lab_a Lab_b
END_DATA_FORMAT
NUMBER_OF_SETS 2667
BEGIN_DATA
90856 "1" 15.6204044 21.9335938 13.4414062
81515 "1" 16.7064951 24.90625 21.5703125
90211 "1" 16.4537377 26.0820312 25.0351562
82780 "1" 17.578125 0.1757812 1.46875
82162 "1" 19.4301471 25.15625 20.0742188
81839 "1" 18.950674 19.7851562 20.390625
82171 "1" 20.2925858 8.75 8.4453125
80225 "1" 19.3167892 17.2578125 13.59375
89564 "1" 20.6387868 7.9335938 17.484375
81838 "1" 22.9856005 17.1679688 19.1171875
82172 "1" 24.364277 6.8320312 8.1171875
83104 "1" 24.0211397 0.1328125 1.4140625
81516 "1" 26.5686275 31.3359375 22.1523438
82495 "1" 26.4476103 12.7226562 9.3164062
82779 "1" 27.5827206 0.1523438 1.375
89888 "1" 28.7699142 27.6914062 23.5195312
82818 "1" 30.9957108 16.0585938 10.7304688
80226 "1" 31.2178309 9.2890625 8.90625
89886 "1" 33.2153799 11.9140625 7.390625
82808 "1" 33.6672794 23.3359375 38.3476562
83464 "1" 34.8682598 15.7695312 16.1875
80219 "1" 36.4966299 9.90625 6.4179688
83787 "1" 35.8838848 16.2070312 19.4492188
81197 "1" 36.9148284 12.7421875 12.1015625
81846 "1" 36.3909314 7.7421875 7.4570312
84367 "1" 36.9056373 1.2460938 4.265625
81522 "1" 35.6755515 4.8203125 7.578125
79897 "1" 38.6488971 1.6484375 2.4960938
82781 "1" 37.8691789 0.1132812 1.3085938
79575 "1" 37.5505515 7.3632812 6.6328125
83142 "1" 39.4286152 14.0585938 14.4960938
81198 "1" 38.560049 4.484375 8.625
83141 "1" 38.9583333 15.4765625 12.0351562
82819 "1" 41.0202206 12.4101562 11.796875
83143 "1" 40.401348 11.8710938 7.2148438
80872 "1" 39.5174632 14.3242188 15.8554688
80220 "1" 40.5193015 15.1953125 9.9414062
79577 "1" 40.4764093 9.0078125 7.2382812
83103 "1" 41.5946691 0.1210938 1.2773438
82487 "1" 41.6145833 24.7773438 26.3789062
79900 "1" 42.0036765 16.078125 9.6757812
95346 "1" 43.1724877 19.3242188 25.8203125
80227 "1" 42.901348 7.1484375 6.4453125
82496 "1" 42.5811887 7.4726562 7.1992188
80876 "1" 43.0208333 2.4765625 6.4804688
82494 "1" 43.9154412 14.0507812 9.3320312
81521 "1" 42.8354779 5.0117188 9.9140625
84110 "1" 43.7806373 14.5351562 21.1484375
81844 "1" 42.3284314 6.2226562 11.0429688
82163 "1" 44.4883578 29.5976562 25.1757812
80541 "1" 44.5189951 5.625 2.7109375
82491 "1" 44.263174 8.9101562 13.8867188
95347 "1" 44.2830882 19.0078125 23.2148438
89563 "1" 45.6341912 13.96875 17.1875
82164 "1" 46.4705882 22.25 21.6445312
90239 "1" 44.7518382 2.8671875 6.5976562
80551 "1" 45.713848 6.9257812 6.9140625
63078 "1" 46.0278799 0.0039062 -0.0078125
83105 "1" 45.2665441 0.1171875 1.2578125
84364 "1" 46.596201 0.3515625 5.625
82486 "1" 44.8820466 30.5585938 28.6992188
76324 "1" 46.4828431 0.3320312 -1.1328125
76002 "1" 46.0784314 0.328125 -1.1289062
83137 "1" 45.8287377 10.2460938 13.7695312
82173 "1" 45.5560662 2.859375 6.5703125
84435 "1" 45.1501225 9.1054688 15.140625
85005 "1" 45.1531863 2.8632812 6.5820312
85403 "1" 46.8259804 9.2382812 16.328125
68897 "2" 46.885723 0.3320312 -1.125
81845 "1" 46.6421569 5.6875 8.2226562
79898 "1" 46.8673407 11.4960938 6.9296875
66629 "3" 46.8367034 0.0078125 -0.0078125
85080 "1" 47.432598 15.8125 22.6914062
84359 "1" 47.5199142 4.2695312 8.2656
-
As I understand it this is not about running Photoshop in 64 bit mode with the ipf x300 plugin, it's about running under CS4 and CS5 that are installed on 64 bit versions of Windows.
Mac users aren't missing any kind of critical update here as far as I can tell.
The version I had (4.00) wasn’t 64-bit savvy but yes, it appears that this 5.00 version just released yesterday is. Going to download and give it a try in CS5.
-
[respectfully] Then you probably haven't found the optimal perceptual rendering settings. Once you do I doubt you'd ever like RelCol for fine art purposes. If there's something that you're liking about RelCol that would be fun to discuss and I think Perceptual has an answer for it.
Well, I think it depends a great deal on the printer's gamut and the dynamic range of the paper whether or not Perceptual or RelCol will look better for a particular images and yes, of course it depends a lot on who made the profile and what settings were used when making the Perceptual tables...
For my work printed on an Epson 9900 usually with EFP and images in ProPhoto RGB (oh, BTW, the working space of the image plays a huge role on Perceptual vs RelCol as well) I rarely prefer a Perceptual rendering because of the impact in the overall tonal range Perceptual forces on an image...the Perceptual mapping not only maps colors but tones as well. Considering the large gamut of the 9900, I rarely need to worry about the colors that end up out of gamut. I'm usually much more concerned with the tonal relationships in the image.
If you are often printing to low dynamic range watercolor papers whose D-Max is poor, I suppose the tonal adjustments of Perceptual may actually help certain images regardless of the gamut compression.
Personally I think it's better to tell people that the only best rendering intent is the one that makes YOUR particular image look the best. Blindly telling people to use one or the other I think is wrong.
-
The version I had (4.00) wasn’t 64-bit savvy but yes, it appears that this 5.00 version just released yesterday is. Going to download and give it a try in CS5.
Well the good news is, the plug-in does run in CS5 on Mac under 64 bit. Bad news is the same CMM error message posted below. Love to get that fixed somehow.
Other issue is the older ViseX installer (3) that Canon is using crashes upon typing your admin password IF you have a non U.S. System loaded in Language & Text. Its a known bug that was fixed in the ViseX version 4 installer.
-
Andrew - great image for evaluating highlights!
Personally I think it's better to tell people that the only best rendering intent is the one that makes YOUR particular image look the best. Blindly telling people to use one or the other I think is wrong.
Fair enough! Well said. Results will vary and experimentation is encouraged.
-
...Other issue is the older ViseX installer (3) that Canon is using crashes upon typing your admin password IF you have a non U.S. System loaded in Language & Text. Its a known bug that was fixed in the ViseX version 4 installer.
Minor correction: Non 'English' I believe rather than non US? There is no country defined in the Language section of these particular prefs. Formats shows UK as region on the machine I installed the plugin on yesterday.
As to choices over RI, fully agree that looking at the options and deciding what looks best is usually the best way.
Does anyone know if a 64 bit version of the Adobe CMM is in the works?
-
Minor correction: Non 'English' I believe rather than non US?
In my case, I have custom input source name that replaces the U.S. (flag) banner that will produce the crash. It has to be set to the US icon to avoid the crash.
-
IMO, that represents a failure on the profile manufacturer's behalf. Excellent perceptual rendering will trump RelCol for fine art printing. The profile manufacturer plays a big part here and Monaco Profiler and it's upcoming successor have the best Perceptual rendering. Once you use it you'll never want to go back to RelCol again. Better "edge gamut" saturation without loss of detail, "middle gamut" colors stay the same, better gray balance, better shadow detail, etc.
I would tend to agree with your for matte prints, where the compressed tonal range and limited gamut can be problematic. My experience is that with fiber-gloss papers, these problems just don't exist for many images.
I always try both options when soft-proofing. But what I find is that for fiber-gloss prints a lot of times the perceptual intent boosts the shadows too much. Maybe for folks who would otherwise be complaining about prints being too dark this would be a good thing, but I have things calibrated so that I don't want or need an extra boost in the shadows.
I know you're a big fan of MonacoProfiler (and reading between the lines, the new i1Profiler). Maybe their perceptual intent is better, and I'll be able to try it for myself once the new software is available. But the truth is rel-col often gives me a very good screen-to-print match for fiber-gloss prints, whereas from what I've seen the perceptual intent will be more likely to look different in some way. I guess it's partly a matter of philosophy; I don't want the profile to do any "enhancements", I just want it to give me a good match between screen and print.
-
Keith,
What in world is going with these measurements? I"m totally confused, and must be reading something wrong or there must be some typo.
You are listing a dmax on the Innova Ultra Smooth gloss at 1.61?? If that is accurate it makes no sense at all. Even on a Photorag type matte media my Z3100 is giving me 1.8+ on a daily basis, and even my Cone K7 inks that do not have great dmax by any stretch are giving my 1.67 on MATTE media. My Z on this Innova gloss and semi gloss paper and the rc photo medis is in the realm of 2.4 or so and Epson is up there about 2+ also with Pk. Something is not right. I must be reading this table wrong? 1.62 is not Black it is gray and on the Innova F gloss it is flat gray, no where close to black.
Before I buy an 8300 please tell me it ain't so.
john
-
Dean, I think those measurements of Keith's were for a matte paper.
That said, if DMax on matte papers is a big concern for you, sticking with HP may be your best bet as they currently seem to be champs in this area. I've never gotten 1.8 from a matte paper with my Canons; maybe it's possible with the right paper and media settings, but I haven't found typical results for matte papers to be around 1.65 +/- .05.
Glossy/semi-gloss papers that use the photo-black ink are another story though, most of them will be in the 2.4-2.65 range with an x300.
To be honest, the DMax performance on matte papers has not been an issue for me. For images where a DMax of 1.7 isn't good enough, 1.8 still isn't going to be good enough, so I'm just going to use a fiber-gloss paper anyway.
-
Does anyone know if a 64 bit version of the Adobe CMM is in the works?
I sure hope so. But I looked at AdobeForums and this very question was asked 6 months ago and went unanswered, which I don't take as a very good sign.
-
Worry not :-)
The measurements were for Innova IFA 11 - Smooth cotton natural white. I use the IFA designation since I've numerous boxes of sheets and rolls of Innova paper and the names are often quite similar and may be different internationally.
-
I just want it to give me a good match between screen and print.
And that's what you'll get with really exceptional perceptual rendering. Better match than with RelCol! Lots of people haven't seen his yet because they're messing around with products with crappy perceptual rendering, IMO. Anyway, something to look forward to... enough for now.
-
Keith,
I did read that wrong I though you were referring to the Innova Ultrasmooth gloss. And from my experience Innova has slightly less dmax than Hahnemuhle of a similar surface but they are very close.
You know, working with different inks all the time now I've kind of changed my thoughts about all this in the last few years. I used to accept the 1.64-1.66 damx of the original Ultrachrome and the same for Piezography as just fine on matt media. But you know after a few years on the Z, I have altered my thinking. This is especially significant to my own work that includes large black backgrounds on about half of what I do now. The old inks just look gray to me side by side. One exception to the non-hp black that is really good is the Ebony carbon black sold by MIS. It will get very close to the HP black, in the realm of 1.77 or so on Photorag. It's fade tests are excellent on the Aardenburg site so that is what I'm putting in my K7s this month as a boost.
Its funny because I used to be the one arguing on these forums for not being concerned about dmax on matte media, that it was way over rated, and many jobs it clearly doesn't matter, but when you have two big prints with black backgrounds sitting side by side and one is just killing the other, you kind of have to recalculate your needs. At least I do. And for what its worth my matte media prints have a density that looks darker and much richer than any fiber gloss. It is an illusion of course, it is the lack of reflections make it look darker.
Having said that the Canon is excellent on the fiber gloss media and apparently beats the Z series and everything else too on gloss differential issues, which is ironic considering it has no separate gloss enhancer channel like the hp that works so well on rc media. ( I still end up spraying my Z fiber gloss prints with uv coat) So, I"ll still go with the IPF8300 for the next one most likely and renew the warranty on my HP once more because I'm addicted to that look now on the Canson matte media for bw.
john